Transcatheter arterial embolization in gastric cancer patients with acute bleeding.
ABSTRACT The safety and clinical effectiveness of transcatheter arterial embolization for bleeding associated with unresectable gastric cancer was evaluated. Twenty-three patients with bleeding from unresectable gastric cancer underwent transcatheter arterial embolization. Of the 23 patients, eight showed signs of active bleeding, such as contrast extravasation or pseudoaneurysm, seven showed only tumor staining, and the remaining eight patients showed negative angiographic findings. All embolization procedures were successful without procedure-related complications. In all eight active bleeding patients, immediate hemostasis was achieved. The overall clinical success rate was 52% (12/23). Recurrent bleeding within 1 month occurred in one (8%) in 12 patients with initial clinical success. One patient showed partial splenic infarction after embolization of the splenic artery for active bleeding from the short gastric artery. Overall 30-day mortality rate was 43% (10/23). The median overall survival period was 38 days. In patients with bleeding from unresectable gastric cancer, transcatheter arterial embolization was found to be safe and effective for achieving immediate hemostasis for active bleeding. Although the clinical success rate was not high, the recurrent bleeding rate was low at 1 month post procedure.
Article: Incidence and management of bleeding complications following percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a serious complication that sometimes occurs after percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG). We evaluated the incidence of bleeding complications after a PRG and its management including transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE). We retrospectively reviewed 574 patients who underwent PRG in our institution between 2000 and 2010. Eight patients (1.4%) had symptoms or signs of upper GI bleeding after PRG. The initial presentation was hematemesis (n = 3), melena (n = 2), hematochezia (n = 2) and bloody drainage through the gastrostomy tube (n = 1). The time interval between PRG placement and detection of bleeding ranged from immediately after to 3 days later (mean: 28 hours). The mean decrease in hemoglobin concentration was 3.69 g/dL (range, 0.9 to 6.8 g/dL). In three patients, bleeding was controlled by transfusion (n = 2) or compression of the gastrostomy site (n = 1). The remaining five patients underwent an angiography because bleeding could not be controlled by transfusion only. In one patient, the bleeding focus was not evident on angiography or endoscopy, and wedge resection including the tube insertion site was performed for hemostasis. The other four patients underwent prophylactic (n = 1) or therapeutic (n = 3) TAEs. In three patients, successful hemostasis was achieved by TAE, whereas the remaining one patient underwent exploration due to persistent bleeding despite TAE. We observed an incidence of upper GI bleeding complicating the PRG of 1.4%. TAE following conservative management appears to be safe and effective for hemostasis.Korean journal of radiology: official journal of the Korean Radiological Society 03/2012; 13(2):174-81. · 1.32 Impact Factor
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is a frequent complication with significant morbidity and mortality. Although endoscopic hemostasis remains the initial treatment modality, severe bleeding despite endoscopic management occurs in 5-10% of patients, necessitating surgery or interventional embolotherapy. Endovascular embolotherapy is now considered the first-line therapy for massive UGI bleeding that is refractory to endoscopic management. Interventional radiologists need to be familiar with the choice of embolic materials, technical aspects of embolotherapy, and the factors affecting the favorable or unfavorable outcomes after embolotherapy for UGI bleeding.Korean journal of radiology: official journal of the Korean Radiological Society 01/2012; 13 Suppl 1:S31-9. · 1.32 Impact Factor